Stovetop

Do you have figures that include 2024? That data seems to stop at 2021. Not saying you're wrong but the picture being painted is just Biden's first year as president during the height of the pandemic.

Comparing things like rates of inflation and the consumer price index, we see the numbers drop dramatically within the past two years, which seems to have been improving cost of living somewhat (or, ruining less quickly, at least) for the average American, though there is still a lot more to be done.

Part of me blames the collective memory loss of the COVID years and a complete lack of understanding of cause and effect.

It's like everyone forgot there was this massive global pandemic which absolutely killed entire industries. And even though the important parts were propped up during the lean times by government support, that support ended eventually, with the economy still a mess that couldn't just be put back together like nothing happened.

I mean, people at that time didn't even have a concept of what was going on. They have no idea how much money was spent keeping the lights on. People lost their shit over the billions it would cost to forgive student loans, but had no idea how many more billions were already spent on—and abused by—businesses whose pandemic loans were forgiven by the government.

Everyone forgot the pandemic was only as bad as it was in the US because it was so completely mishandled by the Trump administration. We could have had everything back to normal a lot sooner if there was even a little bit of national preparedness, not to mention if we didn't have all the misinformation spread by his own administration.

So when the economy went to shit in 2021-2022 during the Biden administration, people shrugged their shoulders and put the blame on the old man in the white house, despite the fact that it's been on a recovery trend during this last year. And so Trump's first year is going to start with stronger markets, he'll get the credit, and then things will get worse just in time for someone else to take the blame for it.

(⁠ノ⁠ಠ⁠益⁠ಠ⁠)⁠ノ⁠彡⁠┻⁠━⁠┻

Some apps/front ends/instances track upvote/downvote totals. Haven't run into any automated filters based on total karma yet, though.

Also worth mentioning that instance admins and some moderators can see specific users' upvotes and downvotes.

There's also a public mod log where instances display their moderator actions taken against whom for what reasons. Doesn't quite stop moderator abuse but it makes it public.

Problem is that, in the post-truth world we are living in, there are large groups of people in online spaces who put feelings over facts. It doesn't matter what you can prove, it only matters what you know, because other things they believe in like religion and conspiracies that define their isolated worldviews can't be proven either.

Out of curiosity, do you know if any other historians/archaeoanthropologists who would make that same claim?

Not to say it's wrong, but I can see how it would be tempting as a self-declared anti-capitalist to want to interpret the findings in a way that conforms to (and thereby confirms) my worldview.

C:/> rotated sideways kinda looks like a person with a lopsided pointy hat and large nose.

I never saw as many fences in my life as I did when I took a trip to the South. So many people in that "fuck you, got mine" mindset.

The US needs the sort of "right to roam" laws that other countries have.

The popular argument I've heard is that they have a vertical integration model which has been deemed monopolistic within other industries in the past.

The common example that would have been used is the old Hollywood studio system, when studios not only owned their lots where the movies were made, but they handled all of the distribution, owned most of the theaters where the films would premiere, owned their own film formats, and locked their big-name stars into contracts which had strict non-compete agreements.

It wasn't impossible to be an independent theater owner and have the ability to choose what films you wanted to show, but it was very hard and required accepting a number of conditions:

• You will pay more for movies than the studio-owned theaters effectively do, which means your tickets need to be more expensive to pay your costs.
• You are subjected to "block booking", where you can't show only popular movies, you are also forced to buy a studio's less popular films as bundles and give them appropriate screen time or the studios won't sell.
• You also need to buy a studio's proprietary projection equipment, because it is made intentionally incompatible with the formats of other studios.

The studio system was eventually deemed monopolistic by the US Supreme Court in their ruling US v. Paramount, and that allowed independent theaters to thrive and for artists to switch to contract work without the strict non-compete agreements. But I have to say "the common example that would have been used," because the conservative-stacked Supreme Court revisited their ruling in US v. Paramount that banned the vertical integration model in Hollywood and decided it was no longer needed, so studios are once again free to resume those old practices if they wish.

So in the case of Apple, the monopoly criticism applies to their vertical integration model which draws some parallels to the old Hollywood studio system that was once deemed monopolistic:

• Apple designs and produces their own devices.
• Apple produces their own operating systems, which are exclusive to those devices.
• Apple produces their own suite of core apps, which are given preferential treatment by their operating systems.
• Apple develops their own technology standards, which are not available to third parties without additional licensing fees (e.g. the Lightning connector, up until the EU forced them to start adopting USB-C).
• Apple hosts their own app store, which is the only app distribution method allowed on their mobile platforms.
• Apple requires third-party apps to agree to their store's terms to be published on the platform, which prohibits any pricing model in which Apple does not get a cut.

For third-party app developers, it means that even if you have your own revenue model beyond Apple's involvement, you are not allowed to extend that to your iOS app without giving Apple their cut, which is why you see so many apps now just declaring that they are "for subscribers" without allowing you to subscribe in the app or giving instructions for where to subscribe. And it's not possible to publish an app on iOS without going through Apple's store and agreeing to their business model because Apple does not allow third-party app stores and heavily restricts sideloading.

Because Apple also gives preferential treatment to their own apps, it is hard to be "as good" as their own offerings, and there will always be a risk of Apple deciding to make some new category of app for a use case that third-parties currently satisfy but may get shut out of.

Tchaikovsky YES.

TCHAIKOVSKY ALWAYS YES.

I guess it could be said that Edge has an unfair...edge?